BIBLICAL  INTRODUCTION, 


Syllabus  of  Lectures 

BY 

F.  D.  HEMEH'WAY,  D.  D., 


Professor  of  lEj^regretica-l  TIln.eologr37', 


IN  THE 

Garrett  Biblical  Institute, 


EVANSTON,  ILL. 


CO  r='2' IS  ic3-xa'i’E:  ID - 


CHICAGO: 

W  P.  Dunn  &  Co.,  Printers,  57  Washington  Street. 

1884. 


^2yD 


ll.hl?  Q-u  vvcutl  T5i'blioo.r\ 'ist  . 


PRELIMINARY. 


r" 


I. 

General  View. 

1.  Definition  : 

Biblical  introduction  is  that  branch  of  theological  science 
which  is  occupied  with  the  records  of  sacred  Scripture. 

2.  Its  Promnce. 

It  proposes  to  lead  us  into  the  scientific  and  fruitful 
study  of  the  Bible.  As  a  means  to  this  result  it  seeks 
to  furnish  all  necessary  preliminary  information. 

(1) .  As  to  the  Bible  itself. 

(<ar).  The  origin  of  its  several  parts.  Who  wrote  these 
books?  When?  Where?  For  what  purpose? 
(6).  Their  organization  into  a  Canon.  When?  By 
whom?  By  what  standard? 

(c).  The  subject  matter. 

(a).  As  to  form; — history,  poetry,  prophecy,  etc. 
ifi).  As  to  substance.  What  truths? 

{d).  Its  claims  and  character. 

(e).  Its  general  history.  The  means  of  its  preser¬ 
vation;  its  spread;  its  position  and  influence. 

(2) .  As  to  the  best  facilities  for  its  study. 

(3.)  As  to  the  qualifications  needed  for  this  study. 

{a).  Good  general  scholarship. 

(b) .  Spiritual  earnestness. 

(c) .  Teachableness. 

(d) .  Breadth  of  intellectual  sympathy. 

(e) .  Faith,  or  spiritual  receptivity. 


4 


Syllabus  of  Lectures. 


3.  Organization  of  the  Subject. 

It  treats  of  the  origin,  preservation  and  interpretation 
of  the  Bible. 

(1) .  Its  origin. 

(a).  Its  human  origin. 

(a).  As  to  individual  books. 

{b).  Their  organization  into  a  canon. 

(i).  Its  divine  origin. 

(a).  The  fact. 

{b).  The  mode. 

(2) .  Its  preservation. 

{a).  The  manner  or  means  of  its  preservation. 

{b).  The  result — Has  it  been  preserved  with  substan¬ 
tial  accuracy? 

(3) .  Its  interpretation. 

(а) .  The  history  of  interpretation. 

(б) .  Principles  and  laws  of  interpretation. 

(c).  Helps  and  accessories  in  interpretation. 


II. 

Claiims  of  the  Bible. 

These  are  based  upon — 

1.  Its  Ayitiquity. 

The  oldest  Biblical  books  date  about  1500  B.  C.;  the 
youngest  about  100  A.  D.  And  these  earliest  books  are 
historical  and  so  look  back  to  an  antiquity  much  beyond 
themselves.  Besides  they  contain  fragments  of  more 
ancient  literature.  An  example  of  this  is  the  Song  of 
Lamech,  in  the  fourth  chapter  of  Genesis. 

But  this  antiquity  can  be  best  judged  of  by  comparison: 

(1).  With  Greek  literature.  Here  Homer  is  the  old¬ 
est  author,  and  his  date  is  from  800  to  1000  B.  C. 
The  best  known  Attic  writers,  such  as  Plato,  Xen¬ 
ophon,  Demosthenes,  etc.,  were  contemporaneous 


SyllaJms  of  Lectures. 


0 


with  the  latest  Old  Testament  writers.  Herodo¬ 
tus,  “  the  father  of  history,”  is  more  than  a  thou¬ 
sand  years  younger  than  Moses. 

(2) .  With  Latin  literature.  The  best  known  and  most 

influential  writers  in  the  Latin  language,  Caesar, 
Cicero,  Virgil,  Horace,  Livy,  and  Tacitus  lived  near 
the  time  of  Christ. 

(3) .  With  Hindoo  literature.  Here  the  Vedas  are  the 

most  ancient.  They  are  1,028  in  number,  and  as 
early  as  600  B.  C.  their  verses,  words  and  syllables 
had  been  carefully  enumerated.  Max  Muller  esti¬ 
mates  that  “  as  far  as  our  knowledge  goes  at  pres¬ 
ent  we  are  perfectly  justified  in  referring  them  to 
the  tenth  or  twelfth  century  before  our  era.” — 
Cont.  Review.,  April.,  1870. 

(4) .  With  Chinese  literature.  The  third  book  of  the 

Chinese  Classics,  called  the  Book  of  Odes,  is 
regarded  as  most  ancient.  No  absolute  date  can 
be  given  for  it,  but  the  most  competent  judges 
believe  that  it  probably  goes  back  fully  1000  years 
B.  C.  It  seems  to  stand  in  the  same  general  rank 
with  the  Vedas  and  the  Davidic  Psalms. 

2.  Its  History. 

(1).  It  has  held  a  central  place  in  literature. 

(a).  It  has  increased  its  quantity. 

(«).  By  multiplying  copies  of  itself.  Fully  150, 000,- 
000  Bibles  now  in  existence — one  for  everv 
ten  of  the  earth’s  inhabitants. 

(5).  Other  books  directly  created:  More  than  60,- 
000  commentaries.  Fully  150,000  Christian 
hymns.  Copies  of  some  of  these  have  been 
multiplied  literally  by  the  million. 

(c).  Still  others  indirectly  produced. 

(5).  It  has  improved  its  quality.  The  great  master¬ 
pieces  of  modern  literature  were  evidently 


6 


Syllabus  of  Lectures. 


born  of  the  Bible.  Dante,  Milton  and  Shakes- 
speare  will  serve  as  illustrations  of  this. 

(2) .  It  has  stood  in  the  center  of  the  highest  civiliza¬ 

tion.  Of  this  there  are  two  tests  or  standards, 
namely,  the  family  and  the  individual  man.  That 
civilization  is  best  which  gives  the  best  homes  and 
the  noblest  characters. 

(3) .  It  is  associated  with  the  best  philosophy, 

(4) .  And  with  the  most  beneficent  and  most  spiritual 

religion. 

3.  Its  C  Contents. 

(1) .  Their  literary  excellence. 

(2) .  The  dignity  of  the  themes. 

(3) .  Their  relation  to  human  interest. 

(4) .  Their  manifest  divinity.  The  Bible  claims  to  be 

the  Book  of  God.  If  this  claim  is  made  good 
everything  is  involved  in  it. 


III. 

Editorial  Changes,  Modifications  and  Additions. 

1.  As  to  the  Text. 

(a).  Hebrew  vowel  points  and  accents — 6th  to  lOth 
centuries. 

{h).  Greek  breathings  and  accents — 7th  and  8th  cen¬ 
turies. 

(c).  Greek  punctuation — complete  in  10th  century. 

(c?).  Word-separation — 5th  century. 

2.  By  Way  of  Arrangement. 

(1).  Of  the  Old  Testament  Books. 

(a).  Originally  in  three  divisions — Law.^  Prophets., 
Writings.  Traces  of  this  three- fold  division  are 
found  in  the  Apochrypha,  Philo.,  Josephus,  and 
the  New  Testament  (Luke  24:44),  and  it  is  pre¬ 
served  in  the  ordinary  copies  of  the  Hebrew  ss. 


Syllabus  of  Lectures. 


7 


(J).  Josephus,  in  his  epistle  against  Apion,  mentions 
Jive  books  of  the  Law.,  thirteen  of  the  Pro2:)hets., 
and  four  of  the  'Writings.  These  last  were  Psa., 
Prov.,  Eccl.  and  Cant. 

(c).  In  the  common,  known  also  as  the  Masoretic  plan 
of  division,  the  following  books  also  stand  in  this 
third  division — Ruth,  Chron.,  Ezra,  Neh.,  Esther, 
Job,  Lam.  and  Dan.  This  plan  of  division  then 
is  as  follows: 


[  Gen. 
I  Ex. 


Law,  ^ 


Lev. 

Num. 

Deut. 


Fornier. 


Proplets. 


Later, 

I 


I 


Josh. 

.fudg. 

Sam. 

Kings. 

Greater,  < 

Isa. 

Jer. 

Ezek. 

Hosea. 

Jonah. 

Zeph. 

Lesser.  < 

Joel. 

Micah. 

Haggai. 

Amos. 

Hab. 

Zach. 

Obad. 

Nah. 

Malachi. 

WrilillgS. — Ruth,  Chron.,  Ezra,  Neh.,  Esther,  Job,  Psa.,  Prov., 
Eccl.,  Cant.,  Lam.  and  Dan. 

{d).  The  Septuagint  obliterates  the  distinction  be¬ 
tween  the  Prophets  and  the  Writings,  inter¬ 
sperses  the  Apochryphal  books,  and  places  the 
Lesser  Prophets  before  the  Greater. 

(e).  In  the  Vulgate  the  same  order  is  preserved 
except  that  the  Greater  Prophets  are  again  made 
to  precede  the  Lesser. 

(/).  The  English  Version  follows  the  same  order 
but  omits  the  Apochryphal  books. 


8 


Syllabus  of  Lectures. 


(2).  Of  the  New  Testament  Books. 

{a).  The  Gospels  and  Acts  usually  come  first  and  in 
their  present  order.  This  probably  indicates  the 
relative  age  of  the  Gospels. 
if).  Following  Acts  the  Eastern  Church  placed  first  the 
Catholic  epistles,  then  the  Pauline ^  the  Western 
Church  placed  first  theiPauline  then  the  Catholic. 
(c).  Of  the  Pauline  epistles  both  divisions  of  the 
church  agreed  in  placing  first  those  addressed  (in 
the  order  of  their  importance)  to  churches;  then 
those  addressed  to  individuals.  The  notable  dif¬ 
ference,  however,  was  as  to  the  book  of  Hebrews., 
which,  in  the  lists  of  the  Eastern  Church  follows 
Thessalonians,  butin  those  of  the  Western  Church 
Philemon.  This  probably  indicates  doubt  as  to 
its  Pauline  origin  in  the  Western  Church. 

{d).  The  Apocalypse  has  always  stood  last.  This  is 
in  harmony  with  its  contents,  and  it  was  last 
admitted  into  the  canon. 


3.  By  Way  of  Addition. 

(1) .  Superscriptions,  or  Titles. 

(a).  Of  Books. 

For  the  most  part  these  must  be  set  down  as  of 
editorial  origin.  Those  of  the  Pentateuch  cer¬ 
tainly  originated  as  late  as  285  B,  C.  Those  of 
the  Gospels  took  their  present  form  in  the  2d 
century. 

(5).  Of  Psalms. 

These  are  certainly  older  than  the  Septuagint, 
and  may  be  original. 

(2) .  Subscriptions  of  Paul’s  epistles.  Originated  in  5th 

century. 


4.  By  Way  of  Division. 
(1)  Paragraphs. 


Syllabus  of  Lectuies. 


9 


(a) .  Ammoniaii  sections  of  the  Gospels — 3d  century. 

(b) .  Eusebian  canons — 4th  century. 

(c) .  Parshioth  or  Paragraphs  of  the  Pentateuch. 

The  54  Greater  P.  originated  as  early  as  the  3d 
century  A.  D.,  the  6G9  Lesser  P.  originated 
somewhat  earlier. 

The  Haphtaroth  of  the  Prophets  may  have  been 
equally  early. 

(2) .  Chapters. 

The  present  chapter-division  made  by  Cardinal 
Hugo,  A.  D.  1248. 

(3) .  Vei'ses. 

{a).  Of  the  Old  Testament  made  by  the  Masoretes 
from  600  to  900  A.  D. 

(5).  Of  New  Testament  made  by  Robert  Stephens. 
First  used  in  1551. 


ORIGIN. 


IV. 

Original  Languages  of  Scripture. 

A.  Of  the  Old  Testament. 

1.  Names. 

t  Jews’ language — Isa.  36:  11,13;  Neh. 

(1) .  Biblical  }  13:  24. 

(  Language  of  Canaan — Isa.  19:  18. 

(2) .  Extra-Biblical — Hebrew.  (In  the  New  Testament  ^ 

this  term  is  applied  to  the  Aramaean). 

2.  Classification. — An  Oriental  language  of  the  Shem- 
itic  family.  The  three  great  divisions  of  this  family 


are: 


10 


Syllabus  of  Lectures. 


(1) .  The  Armaean. 

Two  dialects — the  Chaldean  and  the  Syriac — 
spoken  mainly  to  the  north  and  east  of  Palestine. 

The  literature  of  the  Chaldee  is: 

(a).  Certain  fragments  of  the  canonical  books — Dan. 

2:  14—7:  28.  Ez.  4:  8-16;  7:12-26. 
if).  The  Targums. 

(c).  The  Talmud. 

{d).  The  Masora. 

(2) .  The  Hebrew. 

Spoken  only  in  Palestine.  J^iterature  limited  to  the 
Old  Testament. 

(3) .  The  Arabic. 

Spoken  to  the  South  and  east  of  Palestine.  Since 
widely  diffused.  Abundant  literature. 

3.  Relative  antiquity  of  the  Hebrew. 

(a).  The  mother-speech  of  man  cannot  be  identified 
with  any  extant  language. 

if).  But  the  Hebrew  is  entitled  to  special  respect  on 
the  score  of  antiquity. 

{a).  Its  literature  is  old. 

if).  Alphabetic  writing  originated  here. 

(c).  Most  direct  line  of  development  from  the  prim¬ 
itive  and  normal  life  of  man. 

4.  Characteristics. 

(«).  Exclusively  consonantal  roots. 
f.  Shades  of  meaning  by  vowels. 

(c).  Marked  grammatical  peculiarities: — 
if).  No  case-endings. 
f.  Only  two  genders — those  of  life. 

(c).  Two  tenses — past  and  future. 

(r^).  Genitive  and  accusative  pronouns  suffixed. 

5.  Apparatus  for  its  study. 

(a).  Lexicons — Gesenius,  Fuersts,  Davies. 
f.  Grammars — Gesenius,  Ewald,  Green,  etc. 

(c).  Concordances,  Fuersts,  Eng.,  Heb.  Con.,  etc. 


Syllabus  of  Lectures. 


11 


B.  Of  the  New  Testament. 

1.  Name — Hellenistic  Greek. 

This  means  Hebraistic  Greek.  This  dialect  of  the 
Greek  is  found  in  the  Septuagint,  Josephus,  and  the 
the  New  Testament. 

2.  Character.  Three  elements: — 

(a) .  The  Greek  element.  This  is  in  the  form  of  the 

common  dialect. 

(b) .  The  Hebrew  element.  This  modifies  the  Greek 

so  as  to  cause  some  peculiarities: — 

(a) .  As  to  expression — vividness. 

Pregnant  metaphors  as  “  edify,”  prepositions 
as  well  as  case-endings,  etc.,  etc. 

(b) .  As  to  construction — simplicity. 

There  are  few  participles  and  the  sentences 
are  co-ordinate. 

(c) .  The  Christian  element. 

This  consists  largely  in  the  new  meanings 
given  to  words. 

3.  Apparatus  for  its  study. 

(a.)  Lexicons — Robinson,  Cremar. 

(b).  Grammars — Winer,  Buttman. 

(c.)  Concordances — Bruder’s,  Schmidt,  Hudson,  Eng¬ 
lishman’s. 


V. 

Origin  of  Individual  Books. 

(The  vital  germ  of  the  Old  Testament  is  in  the  Penta¬ 
teuch;  of  the  New  Testament,  in  the  Gospels.  In  treat¬ 
ing,  then,  of  the  origin  of  the  books,  it  will  best  serve 
the  purpose  of  this  course  of  lectures  to  limit  our  inquiry 
to  these  two  divisions.) 

A.  The  Pentateuch. 

I.  General  view. 

1.  Names. 


12 


Syllah'us  of  Lectures 


(1) .  In  the  Bible  itself. 

“  Book  of  the  Law  of  God” — of  Jehovah” — “of 
Moses  ”,  etc.,  etc. 

(2) .  Among  the  Jews.  “The  Five-Fifths  of  the 

Law.”  Each  book  called  by  first  important  word. 

(3) .  Among  the  Christians.  “  Pentateuch  ”  origin¬ 

ated  with  the  early  Greek  Fathers. 

The  present  names  of  the  books  are  of  comparatively 
late  origin — as  late  as  285  B.  C. 

2.  Forms.  Havernick  and  others  regard  the  present 
five-fold  form  as  editorial;  Keil  and  Bleek  think  it 
original.  This  is  the  true  view. 

3.  Plan.  (Lange.) 

Genesis — Preparation  for  the  Theocracy. 

Exodus — Founding  of  the  Theocracy. 

Leviticus — Legislation  for  the  Theocracy. 

Numbers — Later  history  and  legislation. 
Deuteronomy — Supplementary  and  final. 

II.  Its  origin  and  authorship. 

Is  it  a  genuine  product  of  the  period  of  the  Exodus 
and  was  Moses  its  author?  If  so,  of  course  editorial  addi¬ 
tions  and  modifications  must  be  admitted. 

1.  Affirmative. 

(1) .  This  the  unanimous  belief  of  the  Jews  them¬ 

selves.  No  trace  of  doubt  until  the  11th  century. 

(2) .  And  of  Christians.  Most  of  the  questionings 

have  arisen  within  the  last  100  years. 

(3.)  Some  ancient  heathen  testimonies.  (See  Rawlin- 
son’s  “Historical  Evidences.”) 

(4) .  For  certain  most  important  passages  Mosaic 

authorship  is  claimed. 

Ex.  17:14,  24-47;  Num.  33:2. 

Deut.  31:  9-11,  24-26,  j  Deut.  29:19,  20,  27. 
compare  with  (  Deut.  17:18,  19. 

(5) .  This  the  testimony  of  the  later  Scriptural  books. 
{a).  By  using  the  name  of  Moses  with  the  Law. 


Syllabus  of  Lectures. 


13 


(!))•  By  implicating  the  time  of  Moses  as  the 
period  of  its  origin. 

(c).  By  assuming  an  acquaintance  with  the  things 
which  the  Pentateuch  contains. 

(6).  Much  corroborative  internal  evidence. 

(a) .  Its  grand  archaic  character. 

(a) .  Shown  to  some  extent  even  m  the  language. 

(b) .  And  especially  in  the  subject  matter. 

(b) .  The  author  was  acquainted  with  Egypt,  Gen. 

40:16,40:11,41:14,  44:5,  50:23,  26;  Ex. 

2:  3;  Deut.  10: 10,  11. 

(c) .  And  with  the  Sinaitic  peninsula. 

(d) .  He  was  a  Hebrew. 

(e) .  He  was  familiar  with  shepherd  life. 

(/'.)  The  whole  falls  into  perfect  unity. 

2.  Difficulties  and  objections. 

(1) .  “  Pentateuch  seems  to  be  made  up  of  pre-exist¬ 

ing  documents.” 

Ans. — It  doubtless  contains  such  but  is  not 
made  up  of  them. 

(2) .  “  The  literary  excellence  of  the  work,  too  high 

for  the  time  of  Moses.” 

A?is. 

(a).  Of  this  we  are  not  fully  qualified  to  judge. 

Egypt  the  literary  center  of  the  world. 

(5).  But  the  kind  of  literary  excellence  shown  falls 
in  with  the  theory  of  Mosaic  authorship.  It  is 
simple  and  majestic;  not  elaborate  and  ornate. 

(3) .  “It  lacks  unity.” 

Ans.  The  more  thoroughly  the  facts  are  examined 
the  less  ground  does  there  seem  to  be  for  this  objec¬ 
tion. 

(4) .  “  There  are  traces  of  an  age  later  than  Moses. 

(a).  In  the  use  of  certain  proper  names.  Gen,  23:2, 
compare  with  .losh.  14:  15,  etc.  Gen.  14: 14  com- 
Josh.  19:47,  etc. 


14 


Syllab'as  of  Lecttires. 


{b).  Ill  certain  historical  and  antiquarian  allusions. 
Gen.  12:6;  Ex.  16:  86;  Gen.  19:87;  Deut.  3:5, 
9,  11;  Gen.  36:  31.” 

A.ns.  In  some  instances  the  facts  have  been  imper¬ 
fectly  considered.  [E.  as  to  the  names  Hebron 
and  Dan  ;)  in  others  the  explanation  is  apparent 
(“  unto  this  day  ”),  and  in  others  there  may  be 
editorial  observations  inserted. 

(5) .  “  Indications  that  it  was  written  in  Palestine.  The 

term  ‘sea’  is  used  for  west:Gen.  12:8;  Ex.  26:22, 
and  ‘beyond  Jordan’  in  the  sense  of  ‘east  of  Jor¬ 
dan.’  ”  Gen.  50:11;  Num.  22:  1. 

Ans.  These  are  apparent  and  not  real.  The  term 
for  west  doubtless  originated  in  a  maritime  region. 

“  Beyond  Jordan  ”  is  also  used  in  the  opposite 
sense, 

(6) .  “  Such  mention  of  Moses  as  he  would  not  make. 

He  is  spoken  of  in  the  third  person,  is  strongly 
commended  (Num.  22:  3),  and  his  death  is  narrated.” 

Ans.  Of  course  there  is,  in  this  last,  evidence  of  a 
later  hand,  and  possibly,  also,  in  the  passage  in  Num. 
12:3. 


(7) .  “  The  earlier  portion  of  the  Pentateuch  has  a 

mythical  and  legendary  aspect.” 

Ans.  We  should  not  be  in  haste  to  pronounce  a 
passage  unhistorical  without  very  convincing  proof. 
But  this  history  is,  in  many  ways,  corroborated. 

(8) .  “  There  are  some  moral  and  religious  difficulties. 

Sin  had  a  mechanical  origin;  deception  is  approved; 
no  doctrine  of  immortality;  religion  a  partial,  out- 
vvard  and  selfish  thino;  ” 

Ans.  This  objection  the  history. 

B.  The  Gospel. 

I.  The  Problem. 

1.  As  to  subject-matter. 

(1).  Character  of  Christ. 


Syllabus  of  Lectures. 


15 


(2) .  Teachings  of  Christ.  These  are  very  radical 

and  original. 

(a) .  Sets  forth  the  essential  rather  than  the  acci¬ 

dental. 

(b) .  Pronounces  blessing  on  sorrow. 

(c) .  Gives  the  heart  the  first  place. 

(<:^).  Golden  rule. 

(e).  Lord’sprayer. 

(3) .  Miracles  of  Christ. 

(a) .  Considered  as  wonders. 

(b) .  Considered  as  signs  and  revelations. 

(4) .  History  of  Christ  most  unique. 

(5) .  Circumstantiality  of  details. 

2.  As  to  form. 

Two  classes  of  phenomena,  resemblances  and 
divergences.  Tables  have  been  constructed  to 

o 

illusti-ate  these.  Those  below  are  from  Norton 
and  Westcott. 

TABLE  FIRST. 

Let  the  contents  of  each  book  equal  100.  Then 
the  peculiarities  and  concordances  are: 


Pecul. 

Con. 

Mark. 

7 

93 

=  100 

John. 

92 

8 

=  100 

Matthew. 

42 

58 

r=  100 

Luke. 

59 

41 

=:  100 

TABLE  SECOND — C oncovdances. 

Let  all  these  be  100.  Then  there  will  be: 
Common  to  Matt.,  Mark  and  Luke.  .  .  .53 


Common  to  Matt,  and  Luke . 21 

Common  to  Matt,  and  Mark . 20 

Common  to  Mark  and  Imke .  6 


100 


16 


Syllabus  of  Lectures. 


TABLE  THIRD. 

Relation  of  General  to  Verbal  Concordances: 
Matt.  27  to  7,  ^  of  the  latter  being  in  the  recitative 
portions. 

Mark  29  to  7,  j  of  the  latter  being  in  the  recitative 
portions. 

Luke  4  to  1,  being  in  the  recitative  portions. 

II.  The  Solution. 

1.  Theories  of  unbelief. 

(1) .  That  of  imposture. 

(a) .  Entirely  unsupported. 

(b) .  Inadequate.  Does  not  explain  the  phe¬ 

nomena. 

(c) .  History  of  the  church  refutes  it. 

(2) .  The  mythical  theory. 

(a) .  Falls  out  with  the  style  of  the  Gospels. 

(b) .  Does  not  account  for  a  suffering  and  crucified 

Messiah. 

(c) .  Nor  for  the  existence  of  the  church. 

{d).  Nor  for  the  place  of  the  Gospels  in  literature. 

(e) .  Nor  for  the  testimonies  to  Christ  in  general 

history. 

(f) .  Nor  for  the  phenomena  of  the  gospels  as  to 

form. 

(g) .  Finally,  no  time  for  the  formation  of  myths. 

2.  Theories  of  faith. 

(1) .  That  of  interdependence. 

(a).  All  possible  arrangements  of  the  synoptic 
Gospels  have  been  proposed.  This  shows  that 
no  order  of  composition  is  clearly  evident. 

(J).  And  this  does  not  account  for  independence 
in  language. 

(2) .  That  of  a  common  written  origin. 

(a.)  No  proof  of  such  document. 

{b).  How  could  it  have  been  lost? 


Syllabus  of  Lectures. 


17 


(c).  This  inconsistent  with  the  remarkable  diversity 
in  language. 

(3).  A  common  oral  source. 

(a) .  Such  an  oral  Gospel  must  have  existed. 

(b) .  This  the  common  sense  of  the  term  Gospel  in 

the  New  Testament. 

(c) .  This  accounts  for  the  phenomena: 

(a) .  The  resemblance 

(b) .  And  the  diversity. 

VI. 

The  Canon. 

The  term  is  derived  from  the  Greek  /car gov — a  straight 
rod;  hence  a  measuring  rod;  and  then  a  standard,  whether 
in  literature  or  religion.  Irengeus,  Bishop  of  Lyons 
(2d  century),  was  the  first  to  use  the  term  in  this  way. 

A.  The  Canon  of  the  Old  Testament. 

1.  Basis,  or  test  of  canonicity. 

Two  theories. 

(1) .  That  the  design  was  secular — to  form  a  collec¬ 

tion  of  national  writings. 

(2) .  That  it  was  religious,  books  being  admitted 

because  thev  were  believed  to  be  from  God  in 
some  special  sense. 

That  the  latter  is  historically  correct  is  proved: 

(a) .  By  the  Apochryphal  books,  which  speak  of 

the  books  of  the  Old  Testament  as  “  holy  books,” 
“dictated  by  God,”  etc.,  etc.  1  Mac.  2:9; 
2  Mac.  6:  23,  etc. 

(b) .  Philo,  refers  to  the  canonical  books  as  holy 

and  authoritative,  but  never  does  he  so  refer  to 
the  Apochryphal  books. 

(c) .  Josephus  speaks  of  these  books  as  divine,  and 

says  this  “  feeling  is  engendered  in  the  mind  of 


18 


Syllabus  of  Lectures. 


every  Jew  from  his  earliest  childhood.”  (Con¬ 
tra  Cepion,  1.  8). 

(<:/).  Christ  charges  the  Pharisees  with  “teaching 
for  doctrines  the  commandments  of  men.” 

2.  Contents  of  the  Old  Testament  Canon. 

(1) .  Book  of  Wisdom  (B.  C.  130),  mentions  “  the 

Law,  the  Prophets,  and  the  rest  of  the  books.” 

(2) .  Philo  mentions  the  same  three-fold  classifica¬ 

tion  “  laws,  oracles  spoken  by  the  prophets,  and 
hymns  and  the  others.” 

(3) .  Josephus  says:  “We  have  22  books,  namely, 

five  of  the  Law,  thirteen  of  the  Prophets,  and  four 
of  the  W ritings.”  As  nearly  the  same  enumeration 
is  found  in  certain  later  Jewish  catalogues  which 
beyond  question  comprehend  all  the  books  of  the 
accepted  canon,  the  belief  is  warranted  that  this 
enumeration  of  Josephus  comprehends  the  same. 
Samuel,  Kings,  and  Chronicles  are  each  one  book; 
the  twelve  minor  Prophets  were  counted  as  one; 
Lamentations  was  counted  with  Jeremiah,  and, 
possibly,  Nehemiah  and  Esther  with  Ezra. 

{d).  Christ,  in  Luke  24:44,  mentions  the  same  clas¬ 
sification. 

(e).  Such  Christian  Fathers  as  Melito  (2d  century), 
Origen  (3d  century)  and  Jerome  (4th  century), 
give,  substantially,  our  present  list. 

(/*).  The  later  Jewish  authorities,  the  Talmud  and 
the  Masoretes,  bear  witness  to  our  present 
accepted  canon. 

(</).  The  quotations  from  the  Old  Testament  into  the 
the  New  Testament  not  only  show  that  Christ 
and  his  apostles  used  the  books  of  the  Old 
Testament  as  authoritative  and  inspired;  but,  in 
great  measure,  they  serve  to  identify  the  books. 
Their  testimony  is  most  important  as  to  the 
character  and  contents  of  the  Old  Testament 


Syllabus  of  Lectures. 


19 


Canon.  Some  of  the  signiticant  facts  of  this 
subject  are: 

(«).  Whole  number  of  quotations  and  allusions 
more  than  600. 

ih).  All  the  books  of  the  Old  Testament  which,  as 
to  their  subject  matter,  are  nearly  akin  to  the 
books  of  the  New  Testament,  are  quoted  or 
alluded  to.  If  any,  such  as  Ecclesiastes  or  Can¬ 
ticles,  are  not  quoted,  the  reason  is  apparent  in 
the  character  of  the  book. 

(c).  The  Apochryphal  books  are  never  thus  quoted 
or  referred  to. 

(c?.)  The  Pentateuch,  Psalms,  and  Isaiah  are  most 
abundantly  quoted.  As  these  fall  into  different 
divisions  of  the  old  Testament,  this  fact  indicates 
that  each  of  these  divisions,  the  Law,  the 
Prophets  and  the  Writings,  was  held  to  be  alike 
inspired. 

[Note. — The  source  of  confusion  on  this  subject  seems 
to  have  been  the  use  of  the  Septuagint  version,  in  which 
the  Canonical  and  Apochryphal  books  were  mingled  with¬ 
out  distinction.  Augustine  (355-430),  who  was  more  of 
a  theologian  than  a  scholar,  seems  to  have  been  culpably 
loose  in  his  treatment  of  these.) 

B.  The  New  Testament  canon. 

1.  Tests  by  which  made  up. 

(1).  Apostolic  authorship  and  authority. 

(</).  Direct.  Two  of  the  Gospels,  all  of  the  Epis¬ 
tles  and  the  Apocalypse. 

(5).  Indirect.  Mark,  Luke  and  Acts.  Mark  gives 
the  Petrine  Gospel  as  Papias  in  the  2d  century 
records  the  tradition  of  the  church  to  be.  Luke 
gives  the  Pauline  Gospel,  and,  too,  there  seems 
to  be  an  indirect  authoritative  character  in  the 
book  of  Acts. 


20 


Syllab^is  of  Lectures. 


(2) .  Involved  in  this  was  inspiration.  2  Peter  3:15, 

16,  proves  that  these  books  even  then  had  come 
up  to  the  level  of  the  Old  Testament.  Justin 
Martyr  (Apol.  1:  67^)  speaks  of  Christians  as  “  be¬ 
lieving  on  the  voice  of  God  addressed  to  them  by 
the  Prophets  and  Apostles,  whose  writings  are 
read  each  Sunday  in  the  public  assembly,”  etc. 

(3) .  In  some  cases  the  book  itself  seems  to  put  forth 

a  claim  to  authoritv. 

Paul’s  epistles  have  an  official  character — “Paul 
the  Apostle.”  Sometimes  he  assumes  the  author¬ 
ity  of  his  own  epistles — 2  Thess.  3: 14.  The  epis¬ 
tles  of  .lames,  Peter  and  .lude  contain  the  same 
implication  of  Apostolic  character. 

2.  Contents. 

These  may  be  best  considered  under  the  two 
heads  given  by  Eusebius  (A.  D.  270-340),  namely: 
Homologoumena,  or  books  universally  acknowl¬ 
edged,  and  Antilegomena,  or  books  disputed. 

(1).  Homologoumena — Books  acknowledged.  These 
are  the  Gospels,  Acts,  thirteen  epistles  of  Paul 
(Hebrews  omitted),  1  .lolin  and  1  Peter.  Touch¬ 
ing  no  one  of  these  has  there  ever  been  any  mate¬ 
rial  difference  of  opinion.  They  have  been  ac¬ 
cepted  uniformly  and  unanimously  by  the  general 
church. 

{(i).  First  century  witnesses.  These  are  the  Apos¬ 
tolic  Fathers  and  certain  expressions  which 
occur  in  the  canonical  books  themselves.  2 
Peter  3: 15,  16,  shows  that  the  idea  of  the 
canon,  which  was  originally  limited  to  the  Old 
Testament,  had  become  extended  so  as  to  in¬ 
clude  other  books.  The  evidence  given  by 
the  Apostolic  Fathers  is  in  the  form  of  coinci¬ 
dences  in  language  and  not  formal  quotations. 


Syllahus  of  Lectures. 


21 


There  is  nothing  against  any  of  these  books 
directly  or  by  implication,  by  omission  or 
repudiation. 

if).  Second  century  witnesses. 

(<•?.).  Muratorian  canon  (cir.  lGO-170  A.  D.).  The 
oldest  list  of  New  Testament  books.  It  is 
somewhat  mutilated.  There  is  no  perfect 
copy  extant.  It  gives  testimony  to  all  these 
books.  Though  Matthew  and  Mark  are 
wanting,  yet  Luke  is  called  the  third  Gos¬ 
pel  and  John  the  fourth. 

(/>).  The  Peshito — Syriac  New  Testament  (2d 
century).  This  version  contains  all  these 
books. 

(c).  The  Old  Italic  Version  (2d  century)  con¬ 
tained  all  the  Homologoumena. 

{/^).  Justin  Martyr  (8.  1G5).  He  mentions  the 
Gospels,  which  he  calls  the  “memoirs  of  the 
Apostles,”' and  shows  acquaintance,  by  inci¬ 
dental  allusions,  with  all  the  books  of  the 
New  Testament  except  Philemon,  Titus,  and 
the  Catholic  epistles.  Of  course  it  is  not  to 
be  inferred  that  he  did  not  know  these. 

(e).  Papias  (140-150),  Bishop  of  Hierapolis, 
speaks  of  two  Gospels — “the  first  written 
by  Matthew,”  and  the  second,  “  according 
to  the  elders,  Mark  wrote  as  he  received 
it  from  Peter.” 

(/').  Irena3us,  Bishop  of  Lyons  (130-200). 

He  mentions  the  four  gospels  and  ascribes 
them  to  those  whose  names  they  bear.  He 
quotes,  as  Scripture.,  x\cts,  twelve  epistles  of 
Paul  (omitting  Philemon),  1st  Peter,  1st  and 
2d  John  and  the  Apocalypse. 


22 


Syllahns  of  Lectures. 


[g).  Tertullian  (150-220)  refers  to  the  four  Gos¬ 
pels,  Acts,  thirteen  epistles  of  Paul,  1st 
Peter,  1st  John,  Jude  and  the  Apocalypse. 

(A).  Clement  of  Alexandria  (165-220).  He 
quotes  four  Gospels,  Acts,  all  Paul’s  epis¬ 
tles  except  Philemon,  1st  Peter,  1st  John, 
Jude,  and  the  Apocalypse. 

(c).  Third  century  witnesses. 

In  this  century  we  have  several  lists,  two  of 
which  seem  intended  to  be  complete.  There 
were  about  forty  writers  whose  works  are  still 
extant  in  whole  or  in  part.  Among  these 
were  Cyprian,  Dionyesius,  Origen,  etc.  The 
sum  of  their  testimony  indicates  practical  una¬ 
nimity  as  to  this  part  of  the  canon. 

(t?).  Fourth  century  witnesses. 

There  are  about  ten  catalogues  of  this  century, 
and  writers  many  and  voluminous.  Among 
these  are  Arius,  Athanasius,  Jerome,  Euse¬ 
bius  and  Augustine.  All  agree  on  these 
books. 

2.  The  Antilegomena — Books  disputed. 

These  are  James,  2d  Peter,  2d  and  3d  John,  Jude 

Hebrews  and  Revelations.  Touching  these  it  may 

be  observed — 

(1) .  The  doubts  respecting  them  turned  on  their 

genuineness. 

(2) .  The  evidence  against  them  is  mainly  that  of 

omission;  not  of  repudiation. 

(3) .  Some  more  definite  statements  may  help  to  indi¬ 

cate  more  exactly  the  state  of  the  question  as  to 

particular  books. 

(a).  The  evidence  for  Hebrews  is  most  nearly  per¬ 
fect.  Out  of  twenty-eight  lists  preserved 
from  the  early  church,  there  are  but  two  from 
which  it  is  certainly  omitted.  All  the  Con- 


Syllahus  of  LecPares. 


28 


ciliar  and  Oriental  catalogues  contain  it. 
Doubts  seem  to  have  been  limited  mainly  to 
the  Western  church;  hence  its  place  in  our 
Bible. 

{h).  The  Apocalypse  was  latest  in  gaining  an 
assured  place  in  the  canon.  But  it  stands  in 
a  majority  of  the  lists,  and  (which  is  especially 
important  in  such  a  matter)  in  lists  and  litera¬ 
ture  representing  every  section  of  the  church 
— Palestine,  Constantinople,  Syria,  Italy  and 
Spain.  Among  those  who  give  evidence  in 
its  favor  are  Justin  Martyr,  Irenaeus,  Clement 
of  Alexandria,  Origen,  Tertullian,  Jerome,  etc. 

(c).  The  case  is  similar  as  to  the  smaller  books. 
Out  of  twenty-eight  lists  tabulated  by  West- 
cott  they  appear  in  about  twenty.  There  are 
few  expressions  of  doubt;  the  main  evidence 
against  them  is  that  of  omission. 

O 


VII. 

Thd  Divine  Oeigin  of  the  Bible. 
Preliminary . 

1.  Three  great  issues  between  Naturalism  and  Super¬ 
naturalism: 

(a).  As  to  the  Divine  Man — Jesus  Christ. 

{h).  As  to  the  Divine  Book — the  Bible. 

(c).  As  to  the  Divine  Work — spiritual  character. 

2.  Things  assumed  in  this  inquiry. 

(g).  The  genuineness  of  the  Bible. 

{h).  The  authenticity  of  the  Bible. 

(c).  The  correctness  of  the  Canon. 

3.  Elements  to  be  eliminated  from  this  inquiry. 

All  editorial  and  mechanical  modifications  subse¬ 
quent  to  the  completion  of  the  several  books.  (See 
lecture  III.) 


24 


Syllabus  of  Lectures. 


I.  The  idea  of  inspiration. 

1.  That  the  Bible  contains  God. 

2.  That  the  books  of  Scripture  were  originated  under 
an  extraordinary  influence  of  God’s  Spirit. 

{a).  This  to  be  distinguished  from  all  forms  of  merely 
human  inspiration. 

(^).  From  the  common  influence  of  the  Spirit  upon 
all  good  men. 

(c).  And  from  its  richer  influence  upon  sacred  exer¬ 
cises  and  offices. 

((^.)  Best  seen  and  understood  in  the  inspiration  which 
came  upon  Prophets  and  Apostles. 

II.  The  fact  of  inspiration. 

1.  The  Subject  of  the  Bible,  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  is 
divine. 

(«).  Shown  by  his  relation  to  Old  Testament  Prophecy. 
(^).  By  his  strange  and  unique  career. 

(c.)  By  the  unaccountable  originality  of  his  sayings. 
{d\  By  the  perfection  of  his  character. 

(e).  By  his  miracles. 

(/').  By  his  assumption  of  divine  prerogatives. 

2.  Its  influence  is  divine — supporting,  elevating,  sancti- 
fying. 

3.  Its  authors  were  inspired  men. 

(а) .  Prophets. 

(б) .  Apostles. 

4.  It  exhibits  such  phenomena  as  might  be  looked  for 
in  an  inspired  book. 

(«).  Supernatural  revelations. 

{b).  Predictions  of  future  events. 

(c).  Wondrous  power  of  searching  the  heart. 

Borne  witness  to  by  Christ  and  His  Apostles.  Matt. 
1:22,2:15,  22:43;  John  12:40;  Acts  28:  25. 

Definite  claim  of  Scripture. 

(«).  By  terms  employed^  . 

^  F  j  5  I  “rhe^o/yScriptures”,etc. 


0. 


G. 


Syllabus  of  Lectures. 


25 


{b).  As  synonymous  with  its  Divine  Author. 

Gen.  12: 1—3  =  Gal.  3:  8. 

Ex.  9:16  =  Rom.  9:17. 

Psalms  95:7,  8,  =  Heb.  3:7. 

(c).  By  direct  assertion. 

2  Tim.  3: 16. 

2  Peter  1:  21. 

2  Peter  3: 16. 

7.  This  the  uniform  Faith  of  Catholic  Church. 

See  Westcott’s  Introduction  to  Gospels — Ap.  B., 

Or  Lee  on  Inspiration — Ap.  G. 

Objections  and  difficulties. 

1.  Inspiration  unnecessary  to  account  for  much  of  the 
Bible. 

Ans. 

{a).  Are  we  competent  to  decide  this? 

(b) .  May  it  not  be  necessary  for  the  histories  of 

the  Bible  with  their  proper  adjustment? 

(c) .  Are  not  fundamental? 

(d) .  Opposed  to  explicit  testimony  of  Scripture. 

2.  ’•'‘Alany  things  too  trivial. 

Ans. 

(a).  Things  small  or  great  because  of  their  relations, 
{f).  If  any  human  trait,  why  not  these? 

(c) .  Necessary  that  there  he  perfect  humanness. 

(d) .  These  may  be  the  fine  lines  of  the  perfect  picture. 

3.  some  cases  inspiration  expressly  disavowed ,  as  in 
1  Cor.  7:10,  12,  25.” 

A?is.  The  reverse  plainly  true.  Three  cases: 
(a).  That  in  v.  10.  Here  the  I^ord  had  spoken.— 
Mat.  19:  5. 

{b).  That  in  v.  12  Paul  reverses  the  old  order. 

(c).  ILat  in  v.  25  Paul  expresses  an  opinion  as  to 
expediency. 

4.  “  Some  books  mentioned  in  Bible  are  lost.'"' 


26 


Syllabus  of  Lectures. 


(1).  Old  Testament  Books. 

Book  of  Wars  of  Jehovali.  Num.  21:  14. 

Book  of  .Jasher — 2  Sam  1:18;  Josh.  10:13. 
Solomon’s  many  books — 2  Chron.  35:25. 

Book  of  Nathan  and  Gad — 2  Chron.  9:  29. 

Book  of  Acts  of  Solomon — 1  Kings  11:  41. 

Book  of  Chronicles  and  Kings — 2  Kings  24:5. 

(2.)  New  Testament  Books. 

Many  lives  of  Christ — Luke  1: 1. 

Epistle  from  Laodicea — Col.  4:  16. 

Ans. 

[a).  Reason  to  think  this  last  is  “  Ephesians.” 
ib).  Even  if  we  could  know  (as  we  do  not)  that 
some  of  these  lost  books  were  inspired,  it 
would  not  follow  that  our  present  canon  is 
mutilated.  For., 

(a).  Some  prophets’  mission  to  t/ieir  own  age 
alone. 

if).  Others,  as  Jonah,  mainly  so. 

(c).  Many  of  Christ’s  acts  and  words  are  lost. 
id).  Hence  this  in  harmony  with  history. 

5.  “  SS.  contain  mistakes  and  errors.'''’ 

Ans. 

(a).  Not  proved. 

(5).  May  not  be  a  fatal  objection  if  proved. 

II.  Theories  of  Inspiration. 

1.  As  to  extent. 

(1).  Partial  inspiration. 

* 

ifi).  Assumes  unwarrantable  distinction  in  Scrip¬ 
ture. 

(5),  Does  not  truthfully  reflect  the  general  con¬ 
sciousness  of  the  Church  on  this  subject. 

(c).  Takes  away  from  the  Bible  its  fitness  as  a  rule 
of  faith. 

if).  Opposed  to  plain  affirmation  of  Scripture. 


Syllabus  of  Lectures. 


2T 


(2) .  The  theory  of  degrees  of  inspiration. 

(rt).  Can  there  be  degrees  of  inspiration? 

[b) .  No  intimation  of  this  in  Bible  itself, 

(c) .  Still  may  help  us  to  conceive  of  the  way  in 

which  books  of  Scripture  were  originated. 

(3) .  Plenary  inspiration.  Two  particulars. 

(a).  Whole  Bible  inspired. 

{b).  And  equally  inspired. 

2.  As  to  mode. 

(1) .  Pationalistic  theory. 

(«).  Not?w7  inspiration. 

if).  Stands  opposed  by  dimne  phenomena. 

(c).  Destroys  Bible  as  a  book  of  religion. 

(2) .  Mechanical  theory. 

(«).  Does  not  account  for  human  phenomena. 

{f).  Fatal  to  Bible  as  a  book  of  religioyi. 

(c).  Its  affinities  are  Calvinistic. 

(3) .  Dynamic  theory.  Writer  dealt  with  not  as  a 
forceless  instrument but  as  a  living  agent. 

(a).  Explains  human  phenomena. 
if).  And  the  divine  phenomena. 

(c).  Makes  it  a  book  of  religion, 
if).  And  D  ivine- Human  like  Christ. 


PRESERVATION. 


VIII. 

The  Bible  Written — Scripture  Manuscripts. 
1.  Materials. 

(1) .  Dyed  skins.  (All  synagogue  robes.) 

(2) .  Parchment.  (Oldest  extant  MSS.) 

■(3).  Cotton  paper.  (From  10th  century.) 

(4).  Linen  paper.  (After  14th  century.) 


28 


Syllabus  of  Lectures. 


2.  Numbers. 

(1) ,  Of  portions  of  Old  Testament  about  1400. 

(2) .  Of  portions  of  New  Testament  about  1600. 

3.  Age. 

(1) .  Old  Testament  MSS.  from  10th  century  to  printing. 

(2) .  New  Testament  MSS,  from  4th  century  to  printing, 

4.  Some  of  the  Most  Important. 

(1) .  Codex  Sinaiticus.  (A.) 

[a).  Age — 4th  century. 

{b).  Contents — All  the  New  Testament,  and  much  of 
the  Septuagint,  etc. 
if).  Character — excellent. 

(('^).  ICept  in  Royal  Library  of  St.  Petersburg. 
ie)  Published  in  fac  simile. 

(2) .  Codex  Vaticanus.  (B.) 

(a)  Age — 4th  century. 

(b) .  Contents — Most  of  Septuagint  and  the  New  Tes¬ 

tament. 

(c) .  Character — Very  excellent. 

(<:7)  History — Unknown. 

(e).  Kept  in  the  Vatican  Library. 

(/).  Published  in  fac  simile. 

(3) .  Codex  Alexandrinus.  (A.) 

(a).  Age — 5th  century. 

(5).  Contents — Septuagint  and  most  of  New  Testa¬ 
ment. 

(c).  History — Presented  to  Charles  I  by  Cyril  Lucas, 
Patriarch  of  Alexandria. 
id).  ICept  in  British  Museum. 

(e).  Published  in  fac  simile. 

IX. 

Various  Readings. 

1 .  Their  Number. 

[a).  Gross  number  in  New  Testament  estimated  at 
120,000. 


Syllabus  of  Leotures. 


29 


(5).  No  doubt  in  more  than  a  few  hundred  of  places. 
This  includes  all  cases  of  order,  inflection, 
orthography,  etc. 

(c).  Very  few  places  in  which  the  sense  is  affected. 
{d).  Still  fewer  are  of  any  doctrinal  importance. 

2.  Classified  as  to  their  Origin. 

(1) .  Accidental.  The  great  majority  are  of  this  class. 

Some  sources  of  mistake  were: 

(rt).  Imperfect  sight — Eg.  Rom.  12:11 — licxipcsD — 
KvpiGo. 

(b) .  Imperfect  hearing — E.  g.  “  Itacisms.”  Rom. 

2:17. 

(c) .  judgment. 

(a).  Words  wrongly  divided —1  Cor.  15:10, 

(5).  Abbreviations  mistaken — 1  Tim.  o:  16. 

(c).  Glosses  taken  in  from  margin — Matt.  6:13; 
John  5:3,  4. 

(2) .  Intentional. 

(Not  always  with  corrupt  motives.) 

(a) .  To  remove  difficulties. 

(a) .  Of  language — Luke  1:  64. 

(b) .  Of  history — Matt.  27:9;  John  19:  14. 

(c) .  Of  geography — John  1:28. 

(c?).  Of  doctrine — Mark  13:  32. 

(b) .  To  improve  the  text. 

{a).  Classical  for  Hebraistic  idiom. 

(5).  Fuller  statement  found  in  another  place. 
Acts  9:5,  6. 

(c).  Liturgical  additions.  Matt,  6:13  amen 
added  to  some  of  the  books. 

3.  Importance. 

(a).  Do  not  modify  the  doctrinal  teaching  of  Scrip¬ 
ture. 

(5).  Nor  its  characteristic  and  fundamental  facts. 

(c) .  Only  affects  the  lights  and  shades  of  the  picture, 

and  the  number  of  proof  texts. 


30 


Syllabus  of  Lectures. 


4.  Some  of  the  Most  Important  Various  Leadings. 

Matt.  6:13;  11:19;  19:17.  Mark  1:2;  3:29;  16:9-20. 
Luke  2: 14.  John  1:18;  5:3-4;  7:53;  8:11.  Acts 
8:37;  9:5-6;  20:28.  Rom.  5:1;  8:1.  1  Tim.  3:16. 

1  John  2:23;  3:1;  5:7. 


X. 

History  of  the  Printed  Text. 


I.  Hebrew  Old  Testament. 

1.  First  complete  Hebrew  Bible . 1488. 

2.  Complutension  Polyglot . 1514. 

3.  Buxtorf’s  Hebrew  Bible . 1611. 

4.  Hebrew  Bible  of  Joseph  Athias . 1661. 


{a).  This  the  basis  of  all  subsequent  editions. 

(5).  Van  Der  Hooght’s  edition  of  this  text  is  the  pres¬ 
ent  Textus  Leceptus  of  the  Old  Testament. 

(c).  Chief  manual  editions  of  this  are  Judah  d’Alle- 


inand’s — London . 1825. 

Hahn’s — Leipsic . 1832. 

Theile’s — Leipsic . 1834. 

Letteris’ — New  York . ^ . 1869. 

I I.  Greek  New  Testament. 

1.  Complutension . 1514. 

2.  Erasmian  New  Testament . 1516. 

3.  Stephens’  New  Testament . 1551. 

4.  Elzevirs’  New  Testament . 1624. 

5.  Mills’  New  Testament — Oxford . 1707. 

6.  Grissbach’s— Halle . 1775-1806. 

7.  Lachman’s — Berlin . 1831-1850. 

8.  Tischendorp’s — Leipsic . 1840-1869. 

9.  Tregelles’ . 1844-1872. 

10.  Westcott  &  Hort’s . 1882. 

III.  Some  Leading  Versions.  {First  Editions.) 

Septuagint . 1514. 

Syriac  New  Testament . 1552. 


Syllabus  of  Lectures. 


81 


Targiims . 1482. 

Vulgate . 1452. 

German  . 14G2. 

Italian . 1471. 

French . 1487. 

Spanish . 1543. 

Danish .  1524. 

English . 1525. 


Xl. 

Most  Important  Ancient  Verses. 

1.  Septuagint. 

— Hebrew  Old  Testament  into  Greek.  Made  by 
Alexandrian  Jews  about  285  B.  C. 

— In  common  use  in  Christ’s  time. 

— Work  of  unequal  merit.  Pentateuch  excellent. 

2.  Tar  gums. 

— Old  Testament  into  Aramasan  (Chaldee).  This  had 
come  to  be  the  Jews’  language. 

— Age.  Oldest  extant  written  Targums  do  not  go 
beyond  Ist^ century  A.  D. 

— Targum  of  Onkelas  most  important. 

3.  Syriac. 

—  Whole  Bible  into  Western  Aramaean  (Syriac). 

—  Date — Probably  2d  century  A.  D. 

— Syriac  the  birth-language  of  Xy. 

— This  version  excellent — very  literal  and  of  high 
authority. 

4.  Vulgate. 

— Whole  Bible  into  Latin. 

— The  first  “  Italic  ”  version  was  made  from  the  Septua¬ 
gint — 2d  century  A.  D. 

— This  was  revised  by  .lerome  384-404. 

— Jerome  also  executed  an  independent  version  which 
came  to  be  to  some  extent  blended  with  this. 


32 


Syllabus  of  Lectures. 


— Hence  Vulgate  a  composite  of 

(a) .  “  Old  Italic.” 

(b) .  Revised  Italic. 

(c) .  Jerome’s  Version. 

XII. 

English  Versions  of  the  Bible, 

1.  Wyclif’s — 1380  and  1388.  New  Testament  and 

part  of  Old  Testament. 

—  From  the  Vulgate. 

—  Revised  in  1382  by  Nicholas  Hereford;  and  in 
1388  by  John  Purvey,  who  had  been  Wyclif’s 
curate.  More  than  four-fifths  of  Wyclif’s  Bibles 
now  extant  are  of  this  latter  revision. 

—  Some  noticeable  facts — 

(a).  Made  from  Vulgate,  and  not  the  original. 

(c).  Only  English  Bible  for  nearly  150  years. 

{b).  Popular  rather  than  ecclesiastical. 

2.  Tyndales — 1525-1535 — New  Testament  and  part  of 

Old  Testament. 

(a) .  First  English  Bible  translated  from  the  original. 

(b) .  First  printed  English  Bible. 

(c) .  Possessed  of  marked  excellences: 

(a) .  Critical  scholarship. 

(b) .  Felicities  of  expression. 

(c) .  Practical  sagacity  and  popular  adaptation. 

(d) .  This  version  the  basis  of  all  subsequent  English 

versions. 

3.  Coverdale’s — 1535 — Whole  Bible. 

A  revision  of  Tyndale’s  from  the  Vulgate  and  Imther’s 

German  Bible. 

It  was  a  compromise  Bible. 

4.  Matthew’s  Bible — 1537. 

[a).  Some  have  thought  “Thomas  Matthew”  to  be  a 
pseudonym  for  John  Rogers,  whose  initials  are 
attached  to  the  preface.  Of  this  there  is  no  proof. 


Syllabus  of  Lectures. 


33 


It  maybe  that  this  unknown  “  Thomas  Matthew,” 
was  a  patron  of  the  enterprise. 

if).  This  was  the  first  authorized  English  Bible. 

5.  The  great  Bible — 1539-1540. 

{a).  Sometime  called  Cranmer’s,  but  incorrectly. 

(5).  Formally  attacked  by  the  inquisition. 

(c).  Source  of  most  of  the  Scriptures  in  the  book  of 
common  prayer. 

6.  Geneva  Bible — New  Testament,  1557.  Whole  Bible, 
1560. 

{a).  First  English  Bible  printed  in  Roman  letters. 

(5).  First  to  avow  the  principle  of  Italic  words. 

(c).  First  to  use  the  verse  division. 

{d).  First  to  omit  the  Apochrypha. 

(e).  Specially  suited  for  family  and  private  study. 

{f).  Some  attention  given  to  the  original  text. 

{g).  Very  popular — 90  editions  before  present  author¬ 
ized  version. 

(A).  Contained  helpful  explanatory  notes.  (Some¬ 
times  known  as  the  “  Breeches  Bible.”) 

7.  Bishops’  Bible— 1568-1572. 

Basis  of  King  James’  version. 

8.  Rheims  and  Douay.  (Catholic  version). 

{a).  New  Testament  at  Rheims  in  1582. 

(5).  Old  Testament  at  Douay  in  1609. 

9.  King  James'"  authorized  version. 

(a).  History.  54  translators  selected:  47  actually 
employed.  Work  began  in  1607;  Bible  pub¬ 
lished  in  1611. 

(5).  General  character — most  excellent. 

This  the  agreeing  opinion  of  critics  of  all  classes 
of  belief. 

(c).  Some  defects. 

(1) .  Based  on  an  inferior  text. 

(2) .  Contains  faults  of  translation. 


34 


Syllabus  of  Lectures. 


{ci).  Distinctions  created. 

^  cannot. 

Rom.  4th  chapter,  Xoyi  Loyai  reckon. 

(  compute. 

1  Cor.  3:17. 

Phil,  2: 13,  etc.,  etc. 

{!)),  Distinctions  obliterated. 

(a).  a6y<^-y£8yva  ==  “  Hell.” 

zoov-Ovpior  =  “  Beast.” 

diaBoXo^-daijaaov  —  “  Devil.” 

(c).  Inconsistencies  in  proper  names. 

{d\  Improper  treatment  of  names  of  Deity. 

(e) .  Some  errors  in  Syntax. 

[f) .  Some  errors  in  Lexicography. 

Gen.  6:3;  Job  19:23-26;  Psalms  49:14. 

Acts  17:  22,  23;  1  Cor.  13:  12,  etc.,  etc. 

XIII. 

Genuineness. 

1.  Defined.  The  relation  of  a  book  to  its  author.  It 
involves  two  elements: 

(1) .  That  the  claims  of  a  book,  as  to  its  author,  are 

true;  whether  it  be 

{a).  Anonymous,  e.  ^.,  many  Biblical  books. 

{b).  Or  by  an  author  who  uses  a  nom  de  plume., 
as  Diedrich  Knickerbocker’s  New  York. 

(c).  Or  in  his  proper  name. 

(2) .  That  it  has  been  uncorruptedly  preserved. 

2.  Distinguished  from  authenticity. 

—  Genuineness  is  the  relation  of  a  book  to  its  author, 
and  so  is  opposed  to  all  forms  of  illegtimacy . 

—  Authenticity  is  the  relation  between  a  document 
and  the  matters  of  fact  which  it  purports  to  repre¬ 
sent.  Its  more  common  name  is  trustworthiness. 
It  is  based  on  the  competency  and  honesty  of  the 
writer. 


tSyllabus  of  Lectures. 


35 


3.  Proofs  of  genuineness. 

[  Hebrew,  Old  Testament,  1488. 

(1) .  Printed  books,  •<  Greek,  New  Testament.  1514. 

(  Vulgate,  1452. 

(2) .  Manuscripts,  f  Jews  and  Samaritans. 

(3.)  Versions,  Pharis’s  &  Sadducees. 

(4) .  Quotations  and  allusions,  J  Jews  and  Christians. 

(5) .  Relations  of  parties,  ]  East’n  &  West’n  Ch. 

1  Catholic  &  ProtestanC 
Protestant  sects. 


XIV. 

Authenticity  of  the  Bible. 

Shown  by 

1.  Its  hcmnony  with  itself. 

(a).  As  to  general  gylon. 

(^).  As  to  doctrine. 

(c).  As  to  facts  of  history. 

{d).  As  to  spirit  and  tone. 

2.  With  the  physical  conditions  of  its  assumed  origin, 
[a).  The  land  with  its  climate.,  f anna.,  flora.,  etc.,  etc. 
{b.).  The  people;  their  domestic.,  civil.,  religious  life. 

3.  With  profane  history. 

Some  special  issues. 

(<7).  Use  of  the  grape  and  wine  in  Egypt. 

\b).  Acts  13:7. 

(c).  Hamitic  character  of  Babylonish  Kingdom. 

{(X).  Life  of  Christ. 

4.  With  latest  historical  researches. 

(a).  At  Jerusalem. 

{If).  At  Nineveh. 

(c) .  In  Palestine  in  general. 

(d) .  In  Moab. 

5.  With  existing  institutions. 

(a).  The  Sabbath. 

(5).  The  Lord’s  Supper. 

(c).  Baptism. 


3(5 


Syllabus  of  Lectures. 


6.  Of  its  facts  with  its  doctrines, 
{a).  As  to  Jesus  Christ. 

(b) .  As  to  spiritual  character. 

(c) .  Moral  precepts  in  g-eneral. 


INTERPRETATION. 


XV. 

Sacred  Hermeneutics. 

1.  Defined. — The  Science  of  Liblical  Interpretation.  Its 
province  is  to  set  forth  its  principles  and  laws.  It 
differs  from  exegesis  as  the  whole  from  a  part. 

General  Principles. 

(1).  With  certain  qualifications  the  Bible  must  be 
interpreted  like  any  other  book.  These  qualifica¬ 
tions  arise — 

(a).  From  its  composite  character, 

{IS).  Its  spiritucd  character. 

(c).  Its  divinity  and  hence  its  exhaustless  fulness. 
{J).  The  typical  and  prophetical  element. 

{a).  Events  seen  in  perspective. 

(^).  Double  fulfillment, 

(c).  Sometimes  an  ideal  standpoint  as  to  time, 

— This  principle  sweeps  away  dangerous  errors, 
(a).  The  Tapistical  Theory — certain  men  inspired 
to  interpret. 

(/>).  The  Fancdical  Theory — Holy  Spirit  only  and 
sufficient  guide. 

(c).  The  Allegorical  Theory — Hidden  and  mystical 


sense. 


Syllahus  of  Lectures. 


Oi 


(2) .  The  Interpreter  must  recognize  the  essential  unity 

of  Scriptures.  This  unity  is  involved  in  its  divine 
authorship. 

(3) .  And  the  purpose  of  the  Bible — a  book  of  Salva¬ 

tion. 

(4) .  He  must  bring  to  his  work  suitable  qualijicatiofis. 
(a).  Moral  and  spiritual. 

(a).  Cordial  sympathy  with  spiritual  truth. 

{h).  Freedom  irom  prejudice. 

{c).  Singleness  of  desire  to  know  the  mind  of 
God. 

(^).  Literary. 

{a).  Good  general  education. 

{h).  Knowledge  of  sacred  languaxfes. 

(c).  And  of  sacred  archmology. 
id).  Acquaintance  with  man,  especially  on  his  relig¬ 
ious  side. 

•(e).  And  with  the  history  of  interpretation. 

3.  Rules  of  interpretation. 

(1).  Interpret  philologically :  that  is  according  to  the 
general  laws  of  language. 

(a).  As  to  words. 

(a).  The  etymological  sense. 

{Id).  The  usage. 

(^).  As  to  construction. 

Acts  2:47.  Attention  to  the  tense  removes  a 
difficulty. 

John  13:2 — “  Supper  transpiring.” 

(c).  As  to  minuter  details. 

1st  Peter  1: 1 — The  order  of  the  countries  indi¬ 
cates  Peter  to  have  been  in  Babylon  and  not 
Rome. 

Mark  6:  39 — “Upon  the  green  grass.” 

Mark  15:21 — “Coming  from  the  field.” 


38 


Syllabvs  of  Lectures. 


(2) .  Interpret  historically. 

(Luke  19:  41 — “  When  he  was  come  near  he  beheld 
the  city.” — There  is  a  point  in  this  journey  where 
“  the  city  ”  bursts  suddenly  and  impressively  upon 
the  sight. 

Luke  13:  28;  Luke  8:23;  Mark  14:  2G;  Prov.  25: 13; 
Mat.  5:  14,  etc. 

(3) .  Interpret  consistently. 


(a).  Immediate  con¬ 
text — e.  g.  Faith, 


Gal.  1:23. 
Rom.  3:  3. 
Acts.  17:31. 
Rom.  14:  23. 


Heb.  11: 1. 
Rom.  3: 28. 


{b).  General  scope — Rom.  4:5. 

(c).  Position  of  writer — Job  17:26. 

{d).  Generg-l  teaching  of  ss. — “  analogy  of  faith.” 

{a).  Verbal  parallels. 
if).  Heal  parallels. 

(4).  Interpret  spiritually. 

(a) .  Manifest  aim — John  5:  39;  Rom.  15:4. 

(b) .  Illustrations  in  New  Testament.  Mat.  2: 15,  23. 

(c) .  Bible  should  be  treated  as  nature.  Its  office  is 

to  reveal  God. 


WORKING  ORDER  FOR  1882-3. 

1.  What  claims  has  the  Bible  upon  our  attention  and 
study? 

2.  'What  is  the  Bible? 

3.  Is  the  Bible  genuine  f 

4.  Is  the  Bible  true? 

5.  Is  the  Bible  inspiredf 

6.  How  should  the  Bible  be  interpreted  and  used? 


■'X 


4R 

5: 


-  A 


r 


r 


hT  • 

L  , 


■> 


9J'  '• 


^ 


T 


^  • 


